From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.

Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures – a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world’s oceans.

Latif, a professor at [/FONT]the Leibniz Institute[FONT=Times New Roman] at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause – a 30-years-long blip – in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
Latif is a key member of the UN’s climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. [/FONT]He told the Daily Mail that “a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

According to the [/FONT]U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center[FONT=Times New Roman] in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. The agency also reports that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.
Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.

VERY smooth. People are getting wise to the disconnect between actual average temperatures where they live and the hysteria over global warming. Along comes a convenient response: “Don’t trust your own judgement or average temperatures you can verify for yourself. Only trust us - we’re the professionals.”

Never mind years of observable cooling, it’s just a temporary reprieve. We know because we have computers that we’ve programmed to say so…

From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age.

Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world’s leading climate modelers.

Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we’re in for 30 years of cooler temperatures – a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world’s oceans.

Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause – a 30-years-long blip – in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
Latif is a key member of the UN’s climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that “a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 percent.”

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases. The agency also reports that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007.
Many parts of the world have been suffering through record-setting snowfalls and arctic temperatures. The Midwest saw wind chills as low as 49 degrees below zero last week, while Europe saw snows so heavy that Eurostar train service and air travel were canceled across much of the continent. In Asia, Beijing was hit by its heaviest snowfall in 60 years.

**How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.

The most fundamental measure of Earth’s climate state is the globally averaged surface air temperature. We define climate change as an extended trend in this temperature. Such a change cannot happen unless something forces the change. Various natural climate forcings exist. For example, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun alter the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the planet’s surface; such variations can be linked to Earth’s ice ages over the past two million years. Changes in solar output influence how much of the sun’s energy the Earth’s surface receives as a whole; more or less solar energy means warmer or cooler global climate. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide and dust high into the stratosphere, blocking some of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface and causing it to cool. These are climate forcings because they alter the planet’s radiation or energy budget.

An increase in the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide is also a climate forcing: it leads to a situation in which the planet absorbs more solar radiation than it emits to space as longwave radiation. This means the system gains energy. The globally averaged temperature will increase as a result. This is in accord with a fundamental principle of physics: conservation of energy. As humans burn fossil fuels, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, globally average temperature rises as a result.**

Also they answer the question of whether or not that increase in sea ice over the past two years can be consisered a recovery of sea ice.

**How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.

The most fundamental measure of Earth’s climate state is the globally averaged surface air temperature. We define climate change as an extended trend in this temperature. Such a change cannot happen unless something forces the change. Various natural climate forcings exist. For example, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun alter the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the planet’s surface; such variations can be linked to Earth’s ice ages over the past two million years. Changes in solar output influence how much of the sun’s energy the Earth’s surface receives as a whole; more or less solar energy means warmer or cooler global climate. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide and dust high into the stratosphere, blocking some of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface and causing it to cool. These are climate forcings because they alter the planet’s radiation or energy budget.

An increase in the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide is also a climate forcing: it leads to a situation in which the planet absorbs more solar radiation than it emits to space as longwave radiation. This means the system gains energy. The globally averaged temperature will increase as a result. This is in accord with a fundamental principle of physics: conservation of energy. As humans burn fossil fuels, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, globally average temperature rises as a result.**

Also they answer the question of whether or not that increase in sea ice over the past two years can be consisered a recovery of sea ice.

I don't trust either side. They all support their own personal agendas by lying and/or making up data to support their viewpoints. It's all political, whether they call themselves "scientists" or not. I doubt any of them can predict the cooling/warming trend and expansion/contraction of arctic ice with any accuracy.

“Years of preventing global warming has worked. It work so well in fact that now we are experiencing global cooling. Please, everyone begin using your cars and aerosol cans to start warming the earth, again.”

[quote="rlg94086, post:5, topic:182678"]
I don't trust either side. They all support their own personal agendas by lying and/or making up data to support their viewpoints. It's all political, whether they call themselves "scientists" or not. I doubt any of them can predict the cooling/warming trend and expansion/contraction of arctic ice with any accuracy.

[/quote]

I am curious do you feel that way about all science? Or is climate science just special?

I am curious do you feel that way about all science? Or is climate science just special?

Hmm…let’s see. Coffee is good for you…no wait…coffee is bad for you…no wait…coffee is good for you. I am skeptical of scientific conclusions, in general (btw…skeptical does not mean I reject them all). However, I am much more skeptical of climate science, because of the political dimension and the financial dimension. Additionally, climate experiments are not repeatable. They are conclusions based on historic data and the use of computer modeling. They are almost as scientific as social sciences are.

No one seems to want to accept the possibility that the whole science of global climate analysis is just too new to be confident of our conclusions. I accept the possibility that we may be undergoing global warming. We also may be undergoing global cooling. It is just too early to tell. I am sure Al Gore is a bright guy, having invented the internet and all that, but when something is “settled science” I don’t need Al Gore to tell me. When an issue is truly “settled” people (especially scientists) generally stop arguing about it. That is basically the definition of settled. In this case, the arguments seem to be reaching a fevered pitch. If I am investing billions of global tax dollars, and risking the lives of millions, I prefer to take a cautious approach and give the arguments a few more years to reach something a bit closer to an actual “scientific consensus.” :shrug:

[quote="Calliso, post:7, topic:182678"]
I am curious do you feel that way about all science? Or is climate science just special?

[/quote]

Climate science IS special for a variety of reasons.

The data gathering, "corrections", modifications and statistical analysis are so enormous that only government agencies have the budget to apply the crucial step in the scientific process of checking the findings independently and looking for errors and bias.

The findings are likely to be used as the basis for enormous "command and control" legislation that will have a sweeping effect on the freedom and prosperity of Americans in particular and humanity in general.

In short, nobody has much to gain from manipulating research on, say, the problems of captive mating of pandas. So why would I worry about it being manipulated??

Similarly, I tend to be less alarmed by the prospect of responsible nuclear power development than many in the environmental activist community because I recognize that nuclear fallout poses an equal threat to power company CEOs as it does janitors. Nobody stands to gain from building a faulty nuclear power plant.

But there is a definable class of those that stand to gain ENORMOUS power and wealth upon the installation of command and control 'carbon emission reduction laws.'

As an engineer, I'm not remotely embarassed to say that I think climate science needs "special" scrutiny compared to other kinds of scientific investigations. Do you have any idea what it would take to get this country back to 1975 CO2 emissions? I doubt it.

What will it take for the global warming crowd to change their tune? Glaciers compromising the foundations of the Sears Tower in Chicago?

DaveBj

Some actual solid stands up to peer review evidence that shows co2 isn;t the major cause of the recent climate change. And maybe I should add that shows that co2 has little to no effect on the climate this is important because even if the changes we have seen so far are more naturally caused then we think now it doesn;t change the fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas. A period of no true warming * no air temperature or ocean warming that lasts 15-20 years and has no reasonable explaination to explain it.

But long story short it will take more then some misquoted quotes from some scientist in the dailymail to make me go oh gee agw must not be real!

[quote="manualman, post:13, topic:182678"]
Climate science IS special for a variety of reasons.

The data gathering, "corrections", modifications and statistical analysis are so enormous that only government agencies have the budget to apply the crucial step in the scientific process of checking the findings independently and looking for errors and bias.

The findings are likely to be used as the basis for enormous "command and control" legislation that will have a sweeping effect on the freedom and prosperity of Americans in particular and humanity in general.

In short, nobody has much to gain from manipulating research on, say, the problems of captive mating of pandas. So why would I worry about it being manipulated??

Similarly, I tend to be less alarmed by the prospect of responsible nuclear power development than many in the environmental activist community because I recognize that nuclear fallout poses an equal threat to power company CEOs as it does janitors. Nobody stands to gain from building a faulty nuclear power plant.

But there is a definable class of those that stand to gain ENORMOUS power and wealth upon the installation of command and control 'carbon emission reduction laws.'

As an engineer, I'm not remotely embarassed to say that I think climate science needs "special" scrutiny compared to other kinds of scientific investigations. Do you have any idea what it would take to get this country back to 1975 CO2 emissions? I doubt it.

[/quote]

Actually I would argue that the people who stand to gain the most are the people who would actually come up with and design the solutions. Not really the scientists themselves. Sure maybe a few scientists in the top positions might get paid pretty well..but you know its not like they would suddenly lose their jobs if agw was shown to be fatally flawed. Well unless the data was faked or some other such thing. Course then the question would be if agw warming is mostly based on faked data..why? By why I mean why do that? There isn;t a ton of money for most scientists in climate science. Not to mention it would have to be a very complicated scam of immense porportions that would involve probably thousands if not 100s of thousands of scientists, not to mention all the science academies, then of course governments..get the point? And of course you would always have to worry about someone deciding to rat the whole thing out. And all that work for a little bit of money that you could get a lot more of in a much easier way.

I am personally for nuclear though even that has it;s limits, better then coal and oil though.

I don;t know what it would take to reduce emissions that much. I imagine it would not be easy in anyway though. But it;s not easy isn;t a good argument to not do it. Because the potential consequences of failing to move on from fossil fuel use are really bad. I mean even if agw is a bunch of **** it doesn;t change the fact that fossil fuels are a limited resource...and it might be best to develop a new way or ways of basically powering our lives before fossil fuels start getting scarce and more and more expensive to extract.

[quote="K-McD, post:6, topic:182678"]
"Years of preventing global warming has worked. It work so well in fact that now we are experiencing global cooling. Please, everyone begin using your cars and aerosol cans to start warming the earth, again."

Bloody morons!

[/quote]

That was the answer given when Y2K didn't happen.
Anyways, it is hard to tell the difference between mockery and seriousness anymore on these matters. The seasons don't turn anymore; it is all just spin, spin spin.

I sure hope they're wrong about this year being a trend . . . I liked the warming trend much better. Besides, if it is for 30 years it's likely that means it'll be cold for the rest of my life. I don't like that prospect at all.

And why didn't Gore tell us about this in his movie? Could it be that he really can't predict the future of weather? At least we can rest easy about the polar bears for a while. ;-)

I sure hope they’re wrong about this year being a trend . . . I liked the warming trend much better. Besides, if it is for 30 years it’s likely that means it’ll be cold for the rest of my life. I don’t like that prospect at all.
And why didn’t Gore tell us about this in his movie? Could it be that he really can’t predict the future of weather? At least we can rest easy about the polar bears for a while.

Ruth

You should read I think it was my first post in this thread. The scientist being quoted in that article was misquoted and taken way out of context.

In short, nobody has much to gain from manipulating research on, say, the problems of captive mating of pandas. So why would I worry about it being manipulated??
.

Unless of course your research (IE job) is funded by a government grant to investigate the catastrophy that global warming will cause. The US government spent over 79 BILLION dollars on “global warming” research since 1989. Back in 2000 the federal government was spending $1.8 billion annually on the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program. That’s just one program - 10 years ago. You don’t think the people live off those funds don’t have a vested interest?